Talk:Iranian Revolution

Revert with odd edit summary

LouisAragon, if you can 'find a plethore of sources that dismiss the "broadening of education and healthcare" stuff', why have you not done so? If you disbelieve that the broadening of education and healthcare 'is a IRI project, and not a continuation of the Shah's policies', why have you not challenged this with evidence to the contrary? There ought to be a mention of the Revolution's effect on domestic policy in the lead, and a one-sentence summary of a section of the main text is hardly burdening the lead with excessive text. Stara Marusya (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources didn't support that statement anyways [1]. It was also quite vague, as it claimed this alleged "success" occurred "in recent years", yet the two cited sources were from 1994 and 2008, that's certainly not recent. The second source ironically didn't even talk about improvements under the IR, but the opposite, such as women "using their appearance and sexuality to fight the regime" and "Prospects for young people are not good and many graduates are lucky to get jobs as taxi drivers." --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iranian Revolution Women.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hijab as a life-or-death issue

Since Hijab in Iran is a pivotal issue for Khamenei, it is logical to make it so in the article. 2601:C4:C300:2890:A5F3:AE3C:9723:E346 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 2024

Iranian Revolution → Iranian revolution – Change to sentence case (WP:AT). Not consistently capped in sources - per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. See here. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lowercase per n-grams, which shows that it was majority lowercase when the article was created capped in 2003, and there's a minor trend to more capping since then, likely affected by WP, but not approaching a strong majority or the MOS:CAPS criterion of "consistently capitalized" in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've always seen this written in capitalised form. GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IKNOWIT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per nominator's own ngrams which show a clear preference for capitalization. SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A light apparent majority, caused by not weeding out title-case headlines, is not our standard. Consistently capitalized in independent RS is out standard. You know this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish: No, I know that the standard you prefer (as does Tony) is that MOS:CAPS suggests de-capitalizing if essentially anyone is found who might not capitalize it. And sometimes not even that (I've seen you argue that the Wikipedia MOS is so "powerful" that sources don't matter, which is simply a standard very few Wikipedia editors agree with.). You know that I, and many other Wikipedia editors, disagree with your interpretation; in fact it forms the basis of many of your complaints about "over capitalization" (who is doing the over-capitalization? It's not gremlins, it's other Wikipedia editors.). I support you being able to voice your views; I suggest you accept that other people can have a difference of opinion and voice their views, rather than being capital-W Wrong.

  For the record, I am not some sort of reverse pro-capital letters extremist. Hell, I just did a non-controversial move away from capital letters just a month or so ago. There are plenty of times I grudgingly think you're right, just I don't generally need to bother to vote in those cases because the anti-capitals crowd usually has good turnout at RM. But this case is quite straightforward: usage shows sources prefer capital R. Ergo Wikipedia also should use capital R. It is as simple as that. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not nearly as simple as that, on two points: First, our guideline does not say "WP capitalizes when sources seem to prefer capitals". Quite the contrary – read MOS:CAPS again and see. Second, when the n-gram stats show a recent modest preference for capitalization, that is counting occurences in titles (including titles of cited works) and headings and such; and for sources more recent than WP's capitalization of the term, there's also the "unreasonably effective" influence of WP on writers, especially among recent books that include so many enabled by WP. If you look at what proper names look like in n-gram stats, they are 95% and more capitalized. These arguments based on a recent modest majority are far short of our criteria. So it's not so simple as you say, see? Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  our guideline does not say "WP capitalizes when sources seem to prefer capitals" is entirely correct, yet a vague confusion that it somehow means this seems to be the source of a lot of RM repetitive but invalid arguments at RMs. It would probably make sense to just add a footnote at that part of MOS:CAPS (and the corresponding part of WP:NCCAPS) that says "This does not mean that Wikipedia capitalizes if sources seem to somewhat prefer capitals. The preference must be consistent (i.e. verging on universal) across independent reliable sources." I never like to add material to guidelines if it can be avoided, but after 20+ years it is clear that the extant wording is, in some strange way, not quite clear enough to a small subset of editors who very strongly persist in willfully misinterpreting it, no matter how many times RMs conclude the opposite of how they'd like them to conclude. This problem accounts for probably 75% of the conflicts over capitalization in RMs, and probably 95% of the drama about capitalization in RMs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per MOS:CAPS: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia [emphasis added]." Ngrams tend to over-report capitalisation since they do not distinguish things like headings, captions or the titles of works in citations that normally use title case. Allowing for this, we see a slight majority for the capitalised form but not a substantial majority required by MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. This is not consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources. Here's a better N-gram [2] which should reduce some (not all) inclusion of title-case headlines, constrained to pertinent date ranges. It notably shows that "Iranian revolution" was overwhelmingly preferred until after WP had an article on the subject using "Iranian Revolution", so the present lean toward capital R is clearly a case of citogenesis. And it doesn't constitute consistent capitalization in independent RS anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—SnowFire, please read MOSCAPS. There would have to be an overwhelming majority of cap usage: this is not the case. GoodDay, this is not a forum for vague recollections. Tony (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT: "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics." The similar topics here would be American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Mexican Revolution, Russian Revolution and so on. Ham II (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the majority of conflict articles not have the descriptive term (revolution, war, battle, offensive, rebellion, uprising, etc., etc.) capitalized. You've just cherry-picked a tiny handful that happen to pass the "are consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources" test. You have fundamentally misunderstood WP:CONSISTENT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CONSISTENT refers to patterns of naming. It invokes WP:TITLECON which explains that it refers to documented topic-specific conventions on article titles. WP:LOWERCASE (also part of WP:AT) tells use to use sentence case for article titles. There is nothing at WP:AT to suggest there are exceptions to this instruction. Invoking WP:CONSISTENT to suggest revolution should be capitalised in this article title misrepresents the spitit and intent of WP:AT and WP:CONSISTENT, in particular. However, even if this interpretation were given credence, there are articles where revolution is capitalised (because it is consistently capitalised in sources) and others, where it is lowercase. In short, there is no consistant capitalisation of revolution with which to be consistent. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT as Ham II indicated above. I don't find the list he provided "cherry picked" because they specifically include the term "revolution," like this article does. (And if there are articles on national revolutions where we don't capitalize the term, as SmC and Cinderella seem to suggest, please show them.) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've looked and I think there are only these five that have the same construction (without other modifiers or qualifiers, e.g. dates) and are in sentence case: Romanian revolution, Sudanese revolution, Syrian revolution, Tunisian revolution and Yemeni revolution. These are the rest: Cuban Revolution, Nicaraguan Revolution, Belgian Revolution, Philippine Revolution, Serbian Revolution, Argentine Revolution, Monégasque Revolution, Rwandan Revolution, Guatemalan Revolution, Andorran Revolution, Tajikistani Revolution and Ethiopian Revolution. Ham II (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that four of the five mentioned are entirely the work of Dicklyon, Cinderella, and SMcCandlish (one even without a formal RM), and all five are from after mid-2023. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, we have fixed a lot of over-capitalized terms in recent years. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To quote SnowFire in the RM to capitalse Siamese revolution of 1688 on an argument of consistency (see here), As I've said before, this is an invalid rationale. There is zero expectation that capitalization of the word "revolution" be consistent across all articles, nor should there be; Wikipedia should follow the capitalization used in the sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (To be clear, I'm opposing this RM on the nom's argument, so fair enough for Cinderella to quote me in favor. For the record, I stand by what I wrote above - I don't think CONSISTENT is strong grounds for anything. Every [R/r]evolution needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Just... this case is one where there's obviously plenty of support in sources for a capital, so let's go with that.) SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One can acknowledge that the WP:CONSISTENT argument is spurious but disagree with the move for other reasons - which was the point of the post. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Our views on this case differ because the guidance at MOS:CAPS calls for a substantial majority and not a simple majority. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the substantial majority shown in the nominator's own ngram; itself shows far more than a simple majority (+50% for capitalization); the method by which the prevailing style in sources has changed is irrelevant; all that matters is that it took place. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider the n-gram stats for revolutions that we treat as having proper names:
  • American Revolution was only half capitalized 200 years ago, but more like 95% for the last century.
  • French Revolution similarly, the evolution to proper name status is way over 100 years old.
  • Haitian Revolution is more recent. Half capitalized in 2000, now around 90%.
  • Mexican Revolution was half capitalized 100 years ago, about 90% for the last 30 years.
  • Russian Revolution was majority capitalized 100 years ago, around 80% in recent decades, 90% more recently.

    These examples (from ones mentioned above) span the range of marginal (Haitian, Russian) to clear (American, French) "consistently capitalized" per source statistics. The Iranian revolution and the other recently lowercased ones do not come close to these. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Iranian Revolution just reached half capped in 2006, barely to 65% recently.
  • Romanian Revolution is somewhat less capped than Iranian
  • Sudanese Revolution is limping along at near half-capped
  • Syrian Revolution caps are in minority
  • Tunisian Revolution caps were in a minority until the latest year or two of stats

    Probably in all the these WP's over-capitalization has influenced the usage in recent years. We should not be doing that. Caps on WP mean proper name, and people believe us, so we should be careful not to over-cap things. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draw your own conclusions from more. Which would you change per guidelines, and which leave as they are?

  • Cuban Revolution
  • Nicaraguan Revolution
  • Belgian Revolution
  • Revolution
  • Serbian Revolution
  • Argentine Revolution
  • Rwandan Revolution
  • Guatemalan Revolution
  • Ethiopian Revolution

    (the others mentioned above are not common enough to show up in the stats). Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would keep all of these with the existing capitalization except for maybe Romanian, although I wouldn't actively press to have it recapitalized; your first batch is decisive evidence for those pages being treated as proper names, but this does not belittle the other revolutions currently being treated as proper names; 99% support for capitalization is great and makes those completely indisputable, but 60%+ (i.e. 50% more support for capitalization) support is substantial enough that we should not default to downcasing when it is clearly not the common method; MOS:CAPS does not require the practically unanimous support seen in, for example, American Revolution, only substantial support. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not correct at all; you're trying to rewrite the guideline on-the-fly to mean what you wish it meant, which is sharply divergent from what it actually says and means. It requires consistent capitalization across a substantial majority of independent reliable sources, not "substantial capitalization", which verges on the opposite. Even 25% could be argued to be "substantial", but is very obviously not the intent of the guideline. A 60% capitalization rate (especially after demonstrable influence from WP's own over-capitalization) is neither "consistent" capitalization nor "a substantial majority". In actual practice, RM expects to see a 90+ percent capitalization rate to consider it consistent across the substantial majority of indy RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen all of these points from you before; I know what your interpretation of the guideline is, but for now I will stand by mine even if you think it is "Wrong". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If we run an ngram for "Iranian revolution was" (which is usually better indicative of usage in running text, since it eliminates title-case usage in book and chapter titles) we see that the sentence case form has an actual lead over the title case. Thus the MOS:CAPS bar of being "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" is nowhere near met. Consistency is also a non-argument, given the above evidence that articles on revolutions elsewhere are already completely mixed. Basically there is no valid reason to oppose given above, merely personal preference and WP:IKNOWIT type arguments, meaning we have no choice but to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]